efilismfandomcom-20200216-history
Objective Truth
Efilism is a universal, absolute, secular, determinist, materialist philosophy - in other words, a philosophy that directly opposes subjectivist, random, dualist, idealist, relativist and metaphysical philosophy. Efilism does not rely on human-centricity, subject-centricity, subject-relation, subjective analysanda, or syllogistic propositional logic to derive or posit conclusions -- it drills underneath this with meta-cognition, explicandum and explicans, closed-concepts, and modal logic ''to maintain conclusions that are objectively and necessarily true (regardless of any ''possible alternative, and regardless of the subject). For example: Determinism Vs. Freedom It is not necessary to acquire any more proof that free will doesn't exist - because true freedom cannot exist. # Suggesting there's free will in a cause-and-effect universe is like saying there's "triangular roundness". (Free will/Determinism are mutually contradictory and incompatible) # Suggesting the universe isn't cause-and-effect requires that a non-cause could "cause something". (How could something happen if it wasn't caused to happen?) # Suggesting the universe isn't deterministic, but random, would mean "randomness" determines the outcome of the universe. (Randomness is a completely broken piece of rhetoric, because even granting its veracity would still mean "randomness" is determining outcome, and since that still means outcome is being determined, then it's still deterministic) An objective thinker must understand what constitutes "broken semantics", "logical incoherence", "closed concepts" and "impossibility". Then the model of reality can always be put together, and eventually completely put together, regardless of all junk data -- the many forms of junk data in the world,'' which bolster the self-defeating presumption that the case for reality can only be left hanging in uncertainty. Or everything boils down to subjective perspective. Fundamental Truth Efilism rests on a certain fundamental truth, one that allows Efilism's veracity to be confirmed, regardless of all other axiomatic nitpicking you could ever leverage towards this philosophy: # As long as you '''fail' to validate Natalism with your critique of Efilism, then you have failed to validate natalism regardless of your critique of Efilism # That means any critique you could possibly make toward Efilism, which does not validate Natalism in the process, equates to purely "impotent mental-masturbation" that doesn't even touch Efilism's main point # Your critique will therefore just re-affirm that Efilism's main point is fundamentally correct # Efilism's main point being: That'' DNA-perpetuation and life-creation has not been logically or philosophically defended'' Remember that, and let the games begin, because rest assured your "critiquing job" isn't accomplished by hiding on the offense and hoping we don't notice you have failed. Metacognition Metacognition is a double-down function of awareness that our brains have. Most people understand they have awareness and self-awareness. Only a true philosopher understands they also have awareness of awareness, thoughts about thoughts, and other ways of ejecting, divorcing, and separating inputs and outputs from one's own inputs and outputs by using other inputs and outputs. This mechanism opens an entire dimension of objective information to be at our grasp: we are not just pawns to a maze setup. Metacognition, through bizarre circumstance of physics, has granted the ability to assess and decipher and judge mazes themselves. Explicandum and Explicans An Explicandum is that which necessitates explanation, the Explicans is that which necessarily explicates. Example #1 The tree falling in the forest making noise when nobody is around # Noise = the Explicandum # Vibration of molecules = the Explicans # Hearing the noise = the closed-concept empirical consequence, of a conscious medium imputing that vibration algorithm into a sensory algorithm output Example #2 Inmendham and David Benatar VS. The DNA Delusion # Benatar's Asymmetry - the asymmetry between life's goods & life's bads = the Explicandum # Inmendham's Efilism - the fact every "good" is always just the consequence of fixing a bad = the Explicans # Fixing a bad = the closed-concept empirical consequence, of a subordinate anti-entropic unit having to maintain its function and order, inside a chaotic disintegrating entropic universe Modal Logic Modal Logic is the division of reality into 2 prime nodes: That which is the case, and that which is not the case. Those are the only'' 2'' types of node that make this reality, or that could make any possible reality. If you run thought experiments or integrity tests to confirm or deny that, you will find there's no form of reality or reality-model that can escape the requirement of matching those 2 nodes. This is because it is necessarily true. Most people understand there are truths and there are falsehoods -- however -- there are also necessary truths and necessary falsehoods. '''Necessary truths and necessary falsehoods are different than truths and falsehoods. They are different because they '''always apply to all possible equations of any reality that could possibly exist, or even be theorized or modeled to exist''. For example: Objective reality and objective truth exist, because if objective reality and objective truth did not exist, then it would be '''necessarily true' that objective truth and objective reality does not exist. That consequently means, it would be the case that objective truth and objective reality do not exist. And since that would be the case, this would both create/require a final objective necessary truth: Which would be the truth that it is indeed the case, that objective reality and objective truth do not exist. And thus, in modal logic we also reason about what is contingent, necessary, essential, possible, or impossible. Or what is always the case - what can temporarily be the case - or what could never be the case. And hence, necessary truth is always necessary. Necessary Truth Now why does necessary truth exist? Because it is impossible for it to not exist. Why? The absence of necessary truth would just re-create the necessary truth that necessary truth was absent. It would also be necessarily true that nothing was the case. Including the fact that nothing was the case, and the case that necessary truth does not exist. We are caught inside a "if this, then that" mirror that always ends up reflecting something being the case in the end. Therefore, all possible reality, and all equations and descriptions of any possible reality, must maintain a necessary truth. If only as the truth of absolute absence, absolute void, terminal stasis (nothing ever happening ever again), or nothing else ever being the case. Recursion Recursion is the shadow of necessary truth -- it's both a principle of logic itself and a representadum of necessary truth. Like how the number 2 doesn't technically exist as a nomological ingredient. But 2 does exist as a representandum, it's a virtualized representation of the nomological principle, that a unitary configuration in objective reality can be split in half. And since that can happen, we represent what happened with a 2. Recursion occurs when a thing is defined in terms of itself, or of its type. It is where a function being defined is applied within its own definition. It is the process a procedure goes through, when one of the steps of the procedure involves invoking the procedure itself. Recursion has actual real-world uses, even beyond brains and logic, it also makes computers function. Objective Reality / Nomological Necessity Modal Logic unveils what is the case / what is not the case -- and it is the reason anything can be discovered to be the case or not be the case. Necessary Truth unveils what must take place in order for any thought experiment or reality to take place -- and it is the reason anything can only be true or false. Nomological Necessity mandates what is the case / what is not the case -- and it is the reason anything is the case or not the case. And now we have arrived at the final task of philosophy. Investigating behind the scenes for why anything is the case, and what is making anything be the case and not be. And you cannot solve this through any suggestion of multiverses or simulated universes. Meaning you cannot suggest a multiverse, separate universe, or simulated reality can disobey everything or defy our 'simple human primitive understanding', or override all that's been outlined so far. And why not? Because you'd be postulating that it is the case that something can do that. ''You necessarily end up using modal logic to even contrive a theoretical cheat out of this. Your theoretical cheat itself would be obeying modal logic, never mind the much more complex necessary truth and nomological necessity requirements that such an armchair theory would have to somehow answer. The final task of philosophy can be boiled down as: # Determining what constraints / rules exist. # Determining how constraints / rules apply. # Determining what a constraint / rule is. # Having to finally determine what exactly are the [https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Philosophy_Arena#The_Universe_.2F_Nomological_Deterministic_Chaos constraints for ''constraints themselves.] Or what are the rules for rules themselves. '' Nomological necessity could be conceptualized as "the rule for rules themselves". Or the perennial binary that makes function itself function. It is either a constraint, or absence of a constraint, which ultimately determines what is the case and what is not the case. We can break reality down to the bedrock fact, that a "fact" can '''only' be either permitted or prevented. So what exactly is permitting and preventing 'facts? We are now pointing to nomological necessity as the final stopping point to that question, and here is how nomological necessity holds up to integrity checks: Nomological necessity overrides everything. Besides the fact that facts can only be permitted or prevented, there is another way to logically test this. Even if it were possible to take necessity out of existence, then it will necessarily be the case that necessity was taken out of existence. So it will always necessarily be the case: # That necessity used to exist, and was taken out of existence # That necessity still exists, and has not been taken out of existence # That necessity never existed # That necessity always existed # That necessity could never exist # That necessity must always exist # That necessity could "randomly" take the form of any of these options or any other option, and never obey a rule, truth, fact, or axiom But this just creates another necessity which allows, permits, actualizes, maintains, or determines that ''to'' be the case or '''''not be the case. What this thought-experiment indicates is that it's evidently impossible for nomological necessity to not exist. A perfectly fair reason for its existence and a profound fact to try digesting, and yet the puzzle is not complete. Does this make nomological necessity an unpreventable fact? Are there any other facts in reality that could be like this, or is this Fact Prime? Do any other Prime Facts exist, or can any other Prime Facts exist? Do Prime Facts all have a uniqueness that separates them from all other facts, a uniqueness which can be investigated and compared to determine exactly what that is? Can other Prime Facts exist only when this particular Prime Fact is no longer the case? Or is this really the one and only Prime Fact? The entire history of our species having looked at reality as the dichotomy between something vs. nothing and reality's existence vs. reality's non-existence seems logically primitive. Maybe there was never a point to bother comparing reality to "non-reality", at least not one that has absolutely zero properties''.' Because there could '''never' be absolutely zero properties'.' Our universe exists because there was a property that permitted our universe to exist, and if there was a property before that, it necessarily had the property to create that property which had the property to create our universe, and so on. This means, that so far, even the absence of all properties still has the minimum property of permitting properties eventually. That means even if there was a void or stasis before our existence, it was never a true stasis or true void, because a true stasis and true void will be when nothing can ever happen, ever again. So rather than something vs nothing or existence vs non-existence or real vs unreal, what is the latest dichotomy we can use to find out what this fact really is? Contingency vs necessity: Contingency Vs. Necessity All possible phenomena, facts, or events that could ever exist are either a contingency that can change, or a necessity that cannot. Do try testing if that's true or not, it will be apparent there is no outside or in between for "changeable vs unchangeable". Even to suggest that an absolute necessity exists but can change later, only proves it was never absolutely necessary - it was just contingent. But could a contingency later become absolutely necessary, then never change again? Logically does that work perfectly. So already we can notice a real and hard asymmetry while drilling through this. Another prime rule for why objective reality and this puzzle works is because "What is done can never be undone." (Time can only go forward, never backward.) Things can happen but can never "unhappen". So does nomological necessity permit a changeable contingency to evolve into an unchangeable necessity? If yes, then that is part of the reason existence exists. But what forces a changeable contingency to become an unchangeable necessity? There may also be inherent correspondences, byproducts, or composites to be investigated here: Just as time is a byproduct of the fact that momentum does not move distance instantaneously. There may also be a nomological hierarchy of facts, which are arranged in a necessary order that all permit and prevent each other, and are ultimately determining what is actually the ''outputted reality ''that exists as the contingent function. And given the blatant impossibilities of infinity (events going backwards forever would mean we could not have reached this point) we can safely say this mechanism may also be ''evolving -'' and also - that this could very well be ''the '''first' '''and' only ''time '''a' thing like this (reality as a whole) has ever happened, or ever could happen, or ever will happen.' The Final Answer / Theory of Everything This (objective necessary reality) is undoubtedly the most remarkable phenomenon. It has been graffitied with dogmatic magical divine fairytales and adorned with the "god mask" for as long as our species has been able to logically sense any of this is the case. It is the first and last piece of the reality equation, the 1 key ingredient. We have yet to answer the necessity problem. To sufficiently anatomize nomological necessity will be the end of all questions. Perhaps a task suited for general artificial intelligence. That is not to say that we can't ''soon figure out what's going on with this thing. Contrary to the immensely popular appeals to agnosticism, ignorance and subjectivism, we have turned over almost every rock of understanding in the universe. Put it this way, science hasn't found a truly new correct answer since Darwinian evolution despite having exponentially better technology. We have uncovered reality so thoroughly we are at a stalemate of sorts. Physics has reverted to just re-configuring the story, contriving imaginary phenomena to bridge the gaps of their wrong or incomplete answers, like dark-matter, anti-matter, virtual-photons, aether, quantum-mechanical babble like superposition, "the future determines the present", because basically the only thing left to do is to blend together pieces or substitute a made-up placeholder, and hope something sticks. Without any solid new pieces being found, they're stuck taking old solid concepts and making new mush concepts with them. They've gone as far as to try distorting "cause-and-effect" out of a desperate attempt at finding an answer that works. Remember, there can be only 1 correct answer for the whole story, meaning there are functionally unlimited distortions of solid concepts: You could contrive bridge-gap answers, and play around with mush concepts for as long as you possibly wanted to, and every combination of answers you come up with will be necessarily wrong regardless, except for the one true combination. The purity/solidity of information matters more than any volume of information ever could. So besides the avalanche of failed attempts at mixing conceptual ingredients to make a solid final answer, the rest of the work of knowledge itself is applying all the pieces as STEM. "Humans don't want truth, they want a swirly mystery that carries on forever." - Inmendham / Draftscience (2019) Theory Of Everything [https://efilism.fandom.com/wiki/Physics The Theory Of Everything]